Documentary evidence and excise records must be properly considered before denying Notification benefit for alleged excess clearance.

Statutory records for 1983-84, including the verified production register, were treated as reliable evidence of production and clearance in that year. Delivery challans endorsed by the Central Excise Inspector also had to be considered, even though they were not themselves statutory registers. Because these documentary materials were not properly evaluated, the finding that there was no production in 1983-84, and the resulting denial of benefit under Notification No. 83/83, could not be sustained on the existing record. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration in light of the documentary evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand and penalty based on alleged excess clearance under Notification No. 83/83 could be sustained when the statutory records and connected documents indicated production and clearance attributable to the earlier year.

Analysis: The statutory register for 1983-84 showed production of goods of a substantial value and was verified by the Range Inspector, making it reliable evidence of production in that year. The documentary material also included delivery challans from the godown endorsed by the Central Excise Inspector, which could not be ignored merely because the document was not itself a statutory register. Since these materials were not properly considered, the finding that there was no production in 1983-84 and the consequent denial of the notification benefit could not be upheld on the existing record.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in the light of the documentary evidence.

---